Friday, December 09, 2005

The recent events in Venezuela have been covered in detail elsewhere such as at Fausta's Blog, but it remains a rich source of information for those who keep an eye on the supporters of tyranny everywhere. The Guardian "Newspaper" penned an editorial concerning the election with the head, "Democracy under threat." Now, before you fall off your rocker, although it appears the Guardian "Newspaper" got it, they show their love for dictators by blaming the opposition and by extension, America, for the threat.

First off, though, the "Newspaper" tries to explain away the dismal turnout for the election. "The people of Venezuela have gone to the polls 11 times in seven years. Almost a superfluity of democracy, some might think, and signs of electoral fatigue could be detected in Sunday's elections for the National Assembly when only 30% of the electorate bothered to vote. The rest perceived the result as a foregone conclusion since in earlier elections President Hugo Chavez, or the candidates he backed, had stacked up substantial majorities. Sunday's poll followed the trend, and the Chavez list wiped the board." One small problem. The ever reliable (reliable to totalitarians that is) Reuters ran a story that quotes Venezuelan officials as stating that they blamed "the low turnout on traditional apathy in Congress elections and the opposition boycott which led many Chavez supporters to believe victory was assured." Hmm, not quite the rosy picture the Guardian painted is it?

However, the Guardian then pulls out the old "they knew they would lose" chestnut to explain why the opposition withdrew from the polls. "Their rejection (of the referendum to impeach Chavez) did little to enhance their authority or popularity and when they withdrew from Sunday's poll they knew that they faced defeat and humiliation." Really? Based on the fact that Chavez won the referendum, the Guardian divined that the opposition wouldn't win any seats anyway? How would the parties suffer defeat if some of their members won seats in the Congress?

Of course, it's all really Washington's fault as "The US-backed strategy is to use apparently neutral non-governmental organisations to tell the world that the elections are not free and fair, that press freedom is under threat, and that human rights are not respected. These allegations are then exaggerated and amplified in Washington." This fixation on President Bush and his administration could be taken for insanity. Perhaps the Guardian should stop looking under beds for bogeymen, it might improve their mental health.

But their main point is democracy is threatened by those in Venezuela not named Chavez. Hugo is a god, and his enemies are small little disorganized groups of malcontents. "It (Democracy) is indeed in peril, threatened by a tiny ragbag of opposition groups given disproportionate international influence through the support of the US. By their irresponsible electoral abstention, they hoped to undermine the credibility of the parliamentary system." Oops, that pesky Reuters article contradicts them again. "Traditional parties such as Democratic Action and the Copei Christian Democrats, who led the boycott of Sunday's vote, were at the center of power before Chavez came to office in 1999 promising to end years of corruption and neglect."

Sorry, but although the opposition is disorganized now, perhaps because of the Chavez government's oppressive activities, they are clearly a larger group than the dictator loving Guardian "Newspaper" lets on. But that's part and parcel of the leftist plan, lie about your opposition and belittle them at every opportunity. How many barrels of oil did the Guardian get to run this little editorial?

The Guardian closes with a denial of little Hugo's true colors. "Yet Chavez is not a dictator as the Americans claim...There is every sign that he will win the presidential election next year and, who knows, the one in December 2012." Confound it, why does everyone rain on the Guardian's parade? "New deputies elected to Venezuela's National Assembly, to be sworn in January, will legislate to keep President Hugo Chavez in office until 2030, National Assembly President Nicolas Maduro said on Tuesday. The legislation would be revolutionary and would ensure that Chavez remains in power not just till 2021, but till 2030, Maduro said at a ceremony celebrating the victory of pro-government deputies in Sunday's elections." And this from the Chinese government!

Not a dictator, eh? President for life? Changing the constitution to remain in power? I though this was what people of this ilk claimed President Bush was going to do? Yes, it's plain, the Guardian is in full insanity mode. President Bush is Hitler and a war criminal, but Chavez actually does what they claim Bush is secretly planning to do and that's just fine with them. Who said terrorist lovers had to be consistent? They just have to support them no matter what happens.

About Me

This site's comment policy:
As I believe in the Constitution and freedom, commenters are allowed to post regardless of their political or social views. Even Europeans!
Keep your comments on topic.
That doesn't mean that any silly comments without some idea of backup won't be moderated to make the poster look foolish.
ScottG